memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Thomas Riker
Lieutenant Riker's position aboard the Potemkin (from ) I just finished watching , and I think I might have missed it. But on Riker's first assignment (the Pegasus) he was the helmsman, and would have worn red. He transferred to Betazed (doing who knows what) and then to the Potemkin. Then he was wearing the gold uniform, and I was wondering what his position was. I'm pretty sure in , Deanna says he learned to play poker so he could be-friend the senior staff, as if he wasn't on it. Then he was on the Hood as first officer, Red shirt again. I think the real reason was so people would recognize "oh, okay, Thomas Riker's in gold, Will's in Red" and tell them apart. But, What was Riker's post on the Potemkin? - AJHalliwell 19:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) : It was never specified on screen. So there is no answer to your question. Besides it is nothing out of the ordinary to transfer between divisions. Worf was command division, transferred to operations division, then back to command -- and it would seem Riker did the same thing. --Gvsualan 19:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: It says on his page that he developed a "tactic" involving using a planet's magnetic pole to evade enemies, and he also led an away team. I would guess he was the Security chief or at the very least a tactical officer. --Tim Thomason 14:44, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::As operations manager he would also be involved with tactical situations, even if peripherally, and be an away team regular. Presuming the position existed by that point. tactical or ops seem likely, so i guess that engineer might not be as likely -- engineers don't spend as much time on the bridge (but then again, it has been referenced (in (?) and ) that engineering and security can "borrow" less specialized personnel back and forth (this explains Kevin Riley and Mr. Leslies travels aboard ship)). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk "Lingering Mysteries" Should there be a Memory Alpha page for unresolved plot lines, like the fate of Thomas Riker? tom riker & miles o'brien ?? what was riker's problem with o'brien ?? :He likely recalled O'Brien from the Enterprise, and thought that perhaps O'Brien may've recognized him with a longer time together, and didn't want to risk that at all. -- Sulfur 11:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Who's the duplicate? :"Thomas Riker was an accidental transporter duplicate of William T. Riker; in essence, Thomas was an exact clone of William with personality and memories diverging due to different life experiences from the point of the duplication." The wording of this indicates that Will is the original. That may be an invalid assumption. :• After the initial transportation, the original William Thomas Riker is on the planet. The transporter stays where it is. :• After the transporter malfunction, one Riker is on the planet, another Riker is where the transporter is. :• If a Riker went to the planet and a Riker is still on the planet, wouldn't that Riker be the original? :• If the transporter malfunctioned and we have a Riker where the transporter is, wouldn't that Riker be the "transporter duplicate"? :• Because Will was the only Riker people knew for all those years, the assumption (in the Star Trek universe) seems to be that he is the original and Thomas is the duplicate. :• Isn't it actually more likely that Thomas is the original and Will is the transporter duplicate? At the very least, shouldn't this be written to take a neutral stance on who's the duplicate? – StarFire209 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) :I agree. Just for the thing above: If Riker transported to the ship, wouldn't that riker be the original?. now for my own POV. Both Rikers are original. transporter malfunction created two duplicates of the original. thus, the original riker no longer exist, but rather two copies. but lets not argue about that, I want this to be written in a neutral POV. with no assumptions on who is the original. -- Örlogskapten... My channel... 19:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) No original, hmmm. I don't see it myself but that's another alternative. I think a neutral POV is the best way to go. Anyone interested in who's the original can read the talk and here and decide for themselves. – StarFire209 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC) As Thomas had the same early life and career as Will, it would be valid to include that here, but redundant so I just put a reference to finding it in Will's article. To be truly objective, there should be three articles, :"William T. Riker (early life)" for Riker's life before the duplication in 2361. :William T. Riker for the duplicate Riker's life after he materialized on the Potemkin. :Thomas Riker for the other duplicate Riker's life after he materialized on Nervala IV and was later known as Thomas. But that might be more than some could handle. – StarFire209 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC) :I think that it would be too much. A reference is much better. Örlogskapten... My Channel... 17.10, 1 September 2007 (UTC) A matter of perspective, Commander. Most believe Thomas is the duplicate of Will. I think the available canon evidence shows that Will is the duplicate of Thomas. But since people don't like to have their assumptions challenged'*', all I ask is that the duplication be a neutral issue. Present the two as equals. That's harder to do when Will gets all the press and Tom has to settle for "see Will." – StarFire209 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC) *'It's not entirely coincidental that the first article I've written is on Heresy. ;) :: No canon reference (not even the script), that I could find, speaks of Will as the original or Thomas. When this transporter error was noticed years later not even the crew of the ''Enterprise tries to figure that out, so why should we ? The most probable reason that people believe that Will is the original would be is that he continued in the TNG series and Thomas only appear once. (twice if you count the DS9 episode) -- Q 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::That's what I said. "No canon reference...speaks of Will as the original...why should we?" We shouldn't, but we do. We refer to Thomas as "the duplicate of Will". We state that he was created in 2361 as if the Will Riker we all know wasn't also created in 2361. I don't ask anyone to believe that Thomas is the original. All I ask is that we not treat Will as the original to the extent possible.--StarFire209 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :I've been talking about your proposal with some of my friends. We concluded that the most neutral thing to do was as you proposed. Therefore, I have done it. I've created links on both Thomas's and Will's pages to the early life page. I'm also going to create a link and change the page Riker to also link to that page. Some more work is needed, but i think i have made the biggest job. (creating page, linking, writing pages.) :Live long and prosper. -- Örlogskapten... My channel... 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::Cool. I think you've done a great job. It's a balanced approach. But you already have to defend it, Cobra already wants to delete your contribution. (He also deleted comments you made on my talk page.) – Have Heresy, Will Challenge, Write StarFire209 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Starfire, please don't manipulate other people's comments to benefit your own cause. You know full well Q was asking why we should figure out which Riker was the actual duplicate and not asking why we are assuming Will to be "the original." --From Andoria with Love 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC) :::::Merde! I didn't manipulate his words. I excerpted them because I thought he was agreeing with me! The words Q used echoed what I've been saying. I have not said that MA should identify the original. I am not a mind-reader. So why would I, and why do you, think he was asking me that? I have said that the frequent references to Thomas as Will's duplicate and the fact that Thomas's page ignored his life before 2361 indicated the belief that Will was the original. I don't think there was a deliberate choice to favor Will but just the way things were. All I have asked is that statements in this regard be neutral. This has never been about solving the two-Riker dilemma. – StarFire209 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Hmmm... it appears, then, I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies. All the more reason for me to stay as much out of this discussion as humanly possible. ;) --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :::::'s'alright. Sometimes I wish I hadn't started this discussion. :) Perhaps it's time to let it end. The irony of it all is that this started because of information I found here on MA. I never gave it all that much thought before. (icon denoting irony, wry amusement, puzzlement, exasperation) – StarFire209 12:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Votes for featured status *I '''nominate Thomas Riker. The article holds a good quality in its structure. and also contains the canon information about this character. We can't ask to much of this article, as he is only a side-character that appeared in two episodes. --Rom UlanHail 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. Thanks for nominating this again - I nominated some time ago and didn't get much support. It is now an even better article. -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) *'Marginal support'. It is a nice article, but nothing really jumps out at me to say it is a great article rather than just a good one. : *'Comments:' In the infobox, it says he was "created" in 2361. This assumes he is the duplicate and not Will. I think they have equally valid claims to be the "real" Riker. : *I don't like how his backstory is glossed over, saying it is the same is Will's. OTOH, I can't see duplicating Will's info here. A third option, having one page for the backstory, and then two more pages, one for William T. and one for Thomas, doesn't feel right either. : *I'd like to see info from Sole Asylum, Part One and Two incorporated into the apocrypha. : *I'd rather see a DS9-era pic of him in the infobox than a TNG one. The different way he wears his beard distinguishes him from Will better. -- Connor Cabal 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) *'Comments' **I have changed it in to Transporter Duplicate & Duplication accident. **It is hard to tell his early history. A page which would list his early life before the accident was deleted not long after it was created, the idea was not liked. And as you say, It does not look good if we have to identical sections about the early life for both him and the "real" one. **I have not the possibility to read and add the information from those two books (i think it is books). **I have added a DS9-pic of him, and changed the sidebar so it now looks like it does for other characters that have appeared with a gap between the first and last. It now has a picture from his "earliest" and one from his "latest" apperance.-- Rom Ulan 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) * Commment: The two Sole Asylum "books" are comics. I have them both, and if I have the chance tonight, I'll doodle up a) summaries for the articles themselves, and b) doodle up some apocrypha for Tom's page. -- Sulfur 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC) * Further comment: I've written summaries for the Riker story in each of those comics. If you're interested, see the links above. I also put in some notes at the end of the Apoc section. Oh, and I formatted the entire section because it was ghastly. -- Sulfur 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC) **Great, how about a vote now ;-) ?´-- Rom Ulan 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. Looks good. As soon as Rom's €500 arrives in my PayPal, we're good to go. ;-) -- Connor Cabal 02:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. For the love of all that is holy, make this a featured page! My goodness, it was good enough the last time it was nominated, back before HDTV, already. --GNDN 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) *'Comment'. Please, one more support and it is elected.:-D-- Rom Ulan 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC) *'Support' I don't see anything in my opinion that makes this unsuitable. Great article. --Nmajmani 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) * Featured now. -- Sulfur 14:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)